If you've played the Assassin's Creed series, then you already know that Ubisoft takes the occasional liberty with its historical figures. For the most part, this is a necessary compromise between an accurate representation of real individuals and the assassination-focused story Ubisoft wanted to tell. On the other hand, Ubisoft apparently has no problem jumping headlong into outrageous and insane alternate history scenarios when it comes to DLC. Case in point: The Tyranny of King George Washington, a single-player DLC campaign presenting America's first President as a power-mad monarch who oppresses the colonies that he once sought to free.

"History is our playground," said Executive Producer Sebastien Puel, "and AC teams have always loved playing with historical facts and their consequences as a way to better understand a time period ... While Assassin's Creed III concentrates on history as it happens, we wanted to take some liberties with this DLC and tell you how things 'could have happened.'"

The King Washington campaign, released episodically in three DLC packs, will detail an alternate ending to the events of Assassin's Creed III. After defeating the British and gaining independence (spoiler alert!), Washington establishes himself as America's king to quickly secure the future of the Thirteen Colonies. Once Washington inevitably becomes the very tyrant he once would have opposed, it's up to Connor to don an assassin's hood and lead a new rebellion against his former ally.

The concept is incredibly silly, but the more I think about it, the more I suspect it could be just what the franchise needs. Assassin's Creed II's annual sequels may have given Ubisoft the funding to make its latest game, but they didn't exactly break a lot of new ground either. An alternate history DLC campaign sounds like a fun way to experiment with the usual Assassin's Creed formula, and Ubisoft may sell a few more copies of its new game in the process. More importantly, if The Tyranny of King George Washington is successful, it might encourage Ubisoft to experiment further in the Assassin's Creed universe. I'm predicting a DLC campaign in which Connor teams up with Teddy Roosevelt to defeat Mecha-Hitler. In space.

Assassin's Creed III will launch on October 30th for PlayStation 3 and XBox 360, and in November for PC and Wii U platforms. The Tyranny of King George Washington will be included in an Assassin's Creed III Season Pass within six months of release.

sounds pretty sweet, as long as you get to actually assassinate Washington otherwise it will just be a massive cop out. I wonder if they came up with this idea to appease all the "OMG THIS GAME IS SO ANTI BRITISH" people. I'm also looking forward to the inevitable controversy.

Note that perhaps the biggest reason that Washington was elected in the first place was because precisely because he had already demonstrated that he wouldn't seize power...

SPOILERS FOR ASSASSIN'S CREED 2:

Not that I was expecting much more than a cosmetic attention to history from a series which featured a fist fight with the Pope for the MacGuffin of Ultimate and Poorly Defined Power, immediately followed by a nice chat with a random god suddenly magicked into existence by inconsistent writing.

This makes me much more enthusiastic about this game. I enjoy the AC games, but the historical inaccuracies can get at me, and coming into colonial history, there's going to have to be at least some level of whitewashing to make it palatable - but going into zany alternate history sidesteps those problems, so hell yeah!

Imagine if the DLC becomes so popular that it actually starts an Alternate Timeline franchise of fully-developed games. I mean, they've already gone more far-fetched than that with the stuff they're doing in Desmond-time, and if they can really pull out all the stops on the fun angle, I can see it going places. DO IT, UBISOFT!

GrimTuesday:Cue the right wing rage over the fact that a bunch of French people are trying to sully the good name of George Washington.

To be fair, this is in the same vein as asking "what if Superman behaved more like Hitler?", so basically the only right answer is "who cares, because the premise is sort of stupid to start with". Mind, I'm not attempting to imply that Washington was a perfect angel....anyone with a lick of sense knows better. But it's very much like looking up the name "Bob Johnson" in the phone book, finding two entries with that name, and then attempting to argue that there is no reason to have two entries because they are clearly both the same person....despite nothing about them being the same.

It's taking a person or character, changing every major trait about him except name and appearance, and then trying to pretend it's the same guy. It's a common tactic in superhero comics, taking a known entity and making an "evil" version of him in another timeline who is totally the same guy except has none of the same personality traits....so basically, it's kind of dumb. And often, such stories tend to be lackluster at best. See: Superboy Prime, an alternate Superman turned villain who is widely regarded as one of the most hated characters in the DC universe because he's a whiny prat. :P

If they pull it off, points for them I suppose, but it's still sort of ridiculous considering they're already operating under alternate timeline revisionist history. Unless you actually believe that the American Revolution was secretly an extension of the Templar war as AssCreed 3 attempts to suggest. :P

It's funny because there were a few people who served under Washington during the war who actually wanted to put him in charge as the King of America due to how pissed off they were at congress. Washington was furious and declined of course, but what if he didn't?

I'm surprised no one's upset that they're announcing DLC before the game's even out yet. I guess it's because this sounds so freakin' cool. Seriously, Ubisoft, this is a great direction to go in. Keep the main game accurate to history (within reason) and take some unique liberties with the DLC. People who don't buy the DLC don't get upset because, well, it's all a bunch of made up crap anyways, but the people who do buy it get a unique experience that couldn't otherwise be found in the main game, so they don't feel cheated. Love it.

Historical accurate my ass. Several months ago I swear they were telling us how they're going to try and make the game as close to history as possible. As much as this aspeases the anti Washington in, it just seams stupid...

I really dont have a problem with this Lore-wise, hell in the series its already well established that George Washington was a Templar. I was worried this game was just going to be an independence day circle-jerk (and im American!) glad to see im wrong (I HATE one sided history.)

The problem I have is....WHY ARE YOU ALREADY PLANNING DLC UBISOFT?! ಠ_ಠ

Oh this is neat. I recall hearing that after the Revolutionary War when Congress was doing a pretty shit job, some people wanted Washington to start a new rebellion and take his place as dictator of the county. He responded with, "Do you really think I fought a war with King George III just so I can become King George I?"

Kinda interesting to see what might have happened if Washington didn't have such good restraint.

Meh, my first reaction is to to actually start screaming about the DLC already being planned and hyped for a game that isn't even out yet. This is the kind of thing that enrages me about the industry.

As far as the idea of having George Washington as a bad guy, well it's not like it hasn't been done before. They kind of ran with the idea of him being a ghoul/cannibal for the movie "The Washingtonians" (it's on Netflix I believe).

It's doubtful there will be a fox news/right wing outcry since alternative history has been done so many times before accross a wide spectrum of sources. Guys like Harry Turtledove or George R.R. Martin (for what was done with more recent history in "Wild Cards") would have gotten huge amounts of flak if it was going to be an issue, and with no offense to Ubisoft or Assasin's Creed fans, I doubt this will be around as long or have the enduring fanbase (over decades) that certain other alternative history creators have enjoyed.

The only bit that's dubious about it is the timing. Right now I'm a bit more sensitive to US bashing than I have been in the past, in part because of the demands that the US not "belittle or disrepect" other cultures and their history, which we pay a lot of attention to. We've taken France to the cleaners on a lot of levels in the creative media, so turn about would normally be fair play, but right now with Halloween approaching and people getting all upset about "offensive" or "insensitive" costumes via that whole "it's a culture, not a costume" thing, my tolerance is somewhat limited.

I guess what I'm saying is that when Victoria's Secret gets backlash for selling Geisha themed Lingerie:

Geisha's being, all romantisism aside, high class escorts (yes they can do more than have sex, but so do a lot of hookers nowadays, as you find out in a lot of those exposes on the brothel industry in Vegas and such...

It gets my goat a bit when people think dissing George Washington is something to let go. I mean even in the worst case scenario my basic attitude is that if we're going to let other cultures do this kind of thing (as was mentioned, Ubisoft is French), then we shouldn't take it seriously and start boycotts/pressure and tolerate people creating platforms over crap like Geisha Lingerie, or someone wanting to dress in an iconic fashion of someone from another country for Halloween or whatever.

In the end though I guess you could say I'm more irritated with the left wing, than I am with the people actually creating things like this. I also mean "irritated" as it sounds, it's not something I think needs to be stopped, or think is that big deal... it's just an irksome dual standard that comes from political correctness, where the US can be ranked on and see things like this done without any problems (or kudos) but it's a bad thing for Americans to do the same thing.... in my mind everyone is fair game (so to speak).

Xdeser2:I really dont have a problem with this Lore-wise, hell in the series its already well established that George Washington was a Templar. I was worried this game was just going to be an independence day circle-jerk (and im American!) glad to see im wrong (I HATE one sided history.)

The problem I have is....WHY ARE YOU ALREADY PLANNING DLC UBISOFT?! ಠ_ಠ

WTF ... the game isn't even out yet. It's still a month away, and we've already got a three-pack of DLC lined up?

No. Just fucking no. If it's part of the game, include it with the game. If it's a completely separate story worth the $10 or whatever, then it should take you longer than NEGATIVE one month to create.

But this is UbiSoft. They'll probably charge $10 per installment. In which case they just jacked the price of a new game up to $90, and people are clamoring for it.

No thanks. I'll catch it on Steam Sale this winter. Maybe it'll actually be done by then.

poiumty:Assassin's Creed 4 main character: Adolf Hitler. He takes the plunge and sets himself up as history's most hated murderer after jumping off rooftops to assassinate the mad tyrant Winston Churchill.

Calling it.

Maybe for DLC. The Assassin's Creed timeline stated that Hitler, Churchill, Stalin, & I think FDR were Templars, & maybe Hitler (or as they called him, H) had a Piece of Eden with him to take power, but was killed in his bunker. By an Assassin. I think an Assassin also ganked Stalin, too.I'm intrigued by this alternate history approach in the DLC, even though it sounds so early. This is a different approach to ACII's DLC, which were based on real events, but I'm not sure about Brotherhood's and Revelations' bonus missions.

No. Just fucking no. If it's part of the game, include it with the game. If it's a completely separate story worth the $10 or whatever, then it should take you longer than NEGATIVE one month to create.

This only stands if it is day one DLC (or within a couple of weeks of the games release). The Dev team have completed the game, they have no reason to not start DLC.

I probably will buy this, when all the instalments are out; but I don't see why any publisher would consider it a good idea to charge for a season pass that adds over £10 to the cost of the game at release, which is going to put quite a few people off that would have otherwise bought the game.

After all would Undead Nightmare been as successful if they'd announced it before the release of Red Dead Redemption?

It's basically pre-ordering DLC; unless the proceeds of the season pass go towards development of that DLC, it plain sucks.

Who thought it would be a good idea to pull the "season pass" card and announce the plot of a DLC before game release?Don't get me wrong, it's perfectly fine to work on DLC once the game is finished. But if you announce it before the game is released, you're just asking for trouble. Also: Why do we need DLC instantly? How about actually making DLC that extends the game as opposed to "fits in somewhere in that pile of stuff and gives a new piece of content"?Anyways ... I'm still intrigued, but AC3 is definitely not one of my day-one purchases this year. (Actually, with the loss of ME3 and Sleeping Dogs from that list, I'm not buying a single game on day one this year ... hmm ...)